Yeah, I remember reading that article. I rarely, if ever at all, care to read what they print these days, but I caught this one. I was pretty speechless, afterwards. And shocked the Nation, yes, even the Nation, would endorse something like that.

And I wouldn't worry too much, Michael. I can't see you ever writing something half as stupid and anti-American as that article, so you've got nothing to worry about with Hitch.

I saw it last week and it got me to thinking about secularism.

I'm interested in whether you have any historical examples of poor, non-religious / secular folk who have created economically successful, human rights respecting democracies.

I claim poor people need religion as a moral anchor, or else they'll be stuck with some Great Leader espousing sacrifice of the individual for the Great Cause. And they'll get lots of individuals sacrificed.

Basing morals in religion is prolly as necessary as "rule of law" for civilization, in practice.

Grant,

And shocked the Nation, yes, even the Nation, would endorse something like that.

Shocked? Don't be. Its not a case of "even the Nation", but rather ONLY the Nation. Since Marx, all the great evils of Western Civilization have sprung from the left. That includes fascism/Naziism which were leftist ideologies in spite of what your Marxist professors want you to believe. Having run out of its own ideas, the Western left now imports evil insteaad of rolling its own.

And I wouldn't worry too much, Michael. I can't see you ever writing something half as stupid and anti-American as that article, so you've got nothing to worry about with Hitch.

I agree MJT would never pen such filth, but citing Marc Cooper to refute Klein is a bit like citing Stalin to refute Hitler. The differences between Cooper and Klein are only of degree. How else can you explain these comments from Cooper:

Iraqi democrats and socialists make no illusions about the character of American occupation, but they have even less truck with Al Sadr’s death squads.

Perhaps Cooper can enlighten us to the "character of American occupation?"

Cooper then quotes an anti-American rant by some Iraqi leftist and provides the following endorsement of said rant:

Well, I couldn’t have said it better, though I could have said it with a bit less cant. But the main point bears repeating: Nothing – not even the U.S. Army—more threatens the future of a democratic, pluralistic and (dare we wish, secular) Iraq than the political ascendancy of Islamic fascists like Al Sadr.

So America is barely the lesser of two evils according to Cooper. Cooper would just tone down the rhetoric. Bottom line, Cooper hates America as much as Klein does. The only difference between the two is that Klein is willing to embrace pure evil in order to destroy that which she hates. Cooper's corruption is only slightly less thorough.

MJT/Grant,

Here is a great post at Belmont Club that captures exactly what is wrong with people like Klein and Cooper:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/none-so-blind-theres-night_109464755405712336.html

Hitchens, as ever, is wildly overrated. His "brutal evisceration" of Naomi Klein's column contains not one quote, not one direct refutation.

Cooper addresses what Klein actually wrote, and takes her apart exactly the way a decent writer should. Hitchens, on the other hand, employs his usual method of banging his shot glass on the bar and bellowing for attention.

I really don't understand how this guy manages to hold onto his reputation. He used to be a much more careful writer than he currently is. I'm not saying that because of his shift into tubthumping for Bush - I was never a dewy-eyed worshipper of Hitchens, the way so many are on the web. (Is it because his pieces so often read like blog-entries with a juiced-up vocabulary?)

There was a time when he would have deigned to directly address Klein's prose. Now, he doesn't seem to feel he has to - citing the title, in scornful private-school tones, is enough. He is Christopher Hitchens and we are not. He will register his righteous indignation, and we will nod along, enthralled, is apparently the theory.

Sorry, not buying it. And MJT, as a writer, you should not be endorsing this kind of loose, substandard work.

Eh. I've seen better take downs in your comments section.

Hitchens and his usual saloon bar blather, delivered with his usual self preening English supercilliousness.

Marc Cooper seems to have his feet rather more on the ground, even though, overall I disagree with him.

More hypocritical moralising by the pro-war left.
And judging by what Klein actually said, there is a huge amount of screechy hyperbole thrown in by them too.

It is my hope that common-sense Americans ignore Naomi Klein's words, for if we rely on the ideas of these so noted and distingushed "intellectuals", we will all die at the hands of The Nation's elite. Ya know, the ones who think we need a "Department of Wellness", while openingly wishing to "Bring Najaf to New York".

Damn, that George Orwell was one heck of a common-sense person. I am going to re-read "1984" to truly understand what I face when reading Klein's ever so smart words.

HA nicely demonstrates one of many good reasons all thinking, decent people (and particularly the sane left) should shun Naomi and her ilk: because there will always be mendacious yahoos just waiting to use any example of fringe-left looniness to tar all liberals with their "the left hates America" bilge, and it's difficult to refute their cartoonish calumnies when they have real live moonbats to disingenuously portray as if they were represenative samples.

If Ms. Klein would care to be united in solidarity with her ideological companions, I'd be happy to buy her a one-way ticket to Riyadh.

My God I hope I never get on the wrong side of Christopher Hitchens in print.

I think Hitchens regards this as his right side.

If Ms. Klein would care to be united in solidarity with her ideological companions, I'd be happy to buy her a one-way ticket to Riyadh.

Well, you see, that's just hyperbolical rhetoric.

There is no evidence to suggest that Klein actually supports al-Sadr either materially or ideologically, or Islamism generally.

She was simply providing commentary on the situation in Iraq, rather provactively, it now seems.

There is fundamental truth lurking behind the usual leftish navel gazing - the wider point hinted at by Klein. And that is BOTH Sistani AND Sadr are popular in Iraq, and if a real democracy was established in Iraq, and these people became organised, they will gain power. And for all the cruise missile left's joy about Sistani, he too is ultimately a threat to US intents in Iraq, and so is Sadr.

In a country that is your own battleground, a moonscape littered with bodies, you simply kill 'em all. But in a country with supposed sovereignty, and democracy, I am sure other methods will be used.

>>>"because there will always be mendacious yahoos just waiting to use any example of fringe-left looniness to tar all liberals with their "the left hates America" bilge, and it's difficult to refute their cartoonish calumnies when they have real live moonbats to disingenuously portray as if they were represenative samples."

Catsy,

your outrage at being portrayed "cartoonishly" should be directed at people like Naomi Klein and the level-headed people at the Nation for being her vehicle, not at your cartoon "yahoos" who bring it to your attention.

Your whining mirrors that of muslims who show more outrage at nasty stares and John Aschroft than at their fellow muslims who have supposedly hijacked their Religion of Peace. The target of your "outrage" makes one wonder.

Clearly, there is something happenning inside the Left, but you're more worried about "yahoos."

your outrage at being portrayed "cartoonishly" should be directed at people like Naomi Klein and the level-headed people at the Nation for being her vehicle, not at your cartoon "yahoos" who bring it to your attention.

Thanks, but I'll be the judge of where my outrage is better directed. The existence of loons like Klein does not give people like HA a free pass to dishonestly use the loons as proxy examples of all liberalism. Someone who can say, in all apparent seriousness, that "[s]ince Marx, all the great evils of Western Civilization have sprung from the left" has absolutely no business being taken seriously by rational human beings.

Your whining mirrors that of muslims who show more outrage at nasty stares and John Aschroft than at their fellow muslims who have supposedly hijacked their Religion of Peace.

You attempt to draw a false equivalence. I'm no fan of Ashcroft's, but I haven't heard him recently using Osama bin Laden as an example of how evil Islam is. Yet that is preceisely HA's modus operandi: any example of leftist foolishness is used to advance his pre-determined argument that The Left Is Evil.

Clearly, there is something happenning inside the Left, but you're more worried about "yahoos."

Please. There's plenty of lunacy on both ends of the spectrum. You don't hear me holding Christianists like Jerry Falwell or right-wing militia groups against conservatives or the mainstream GOP, even though they /are/ conservative and most of them are Republicans. You guys can't control party membership or superficial ideological affinity any more than we can, so quit pretending as if being associated with barking moonbats is the exclusive province of the left.

By all means, rant all you like about fools like Klein. You'll get no argument from me. But I draw the line when someone starts talking about fringe leftists/rightists as if they were in any way representative of mainstream liberalism/conservatism or the Democratic/Republican Party.

Catsy,

Speaking of false equivalence, Falwell isn't featured in respected newspapers of the Right.

On the other hand, if Leftist Loons (such as Klein) can make a living writing for your respected newspapers of the Left, then I insist there is something happenning. That's all I have to say.

HA: Cooper hates America as much as Klein does.

I know Marc Cooper personally and can tell you without a doubt that you're completely wrong about him and that you can't win this argument with me.

Catsy: The existence of loons like Klein does not give people like HA a free pass to dishonestly use the loons as proxy examples of all liberalism.

This is absolutely right. Even Marc Cooper, who fisks her point by point, got tarnished in here. Whatever. It's easier to be against the left (or the right) if you view the entire thing as a monolithic monster.

There are people and ideas on both the left and the right that I have a healthy respect for.

David: Speaking of false equivalence, Falwell isn't featured in respected newspapers of the Right.

Maybe not, but Sean Hannity trots him out once in a while. A while back I was listening to his show (don't ask me why, I couldn't tell you) and I had to turn the station when he said "And next we'll see what Pat Robertson has to say!" Bah.

Speaking of "Loons", it's far too convenient for the Nation and the Catsy's of the world to simply dismiss the "Loons" like Klein while at the same time featuring them on their papers. It strikes me as disingenouse to say the least, and a clear case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They get to take their shots and then dissavow it when they see return fire.

I don't see Falwell on National Review. Enough said.

Michael,

point well taken. I'll have to think about that.

Speaking of the sane left and the insane left:

United for Peace and Justice, the group that sponsored recent anti-Bush rally in New York, is planning to attend international conference on the antiwar and antiglobalization movements next week in Beirut.

The Palestinian group that was resposible for the slaughter of 21 schoolchildren in a 1971 attack, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, will also be attending this anti war conference.

The Democratic Front is listed under Terrorist Group Profiles by the United States Government.

A voice from the Sane Left, Gene at Harry's Place says:

"Hosting the meeting is a broad range of political forces in Lebanon and Palestine, including progressives, seculars, and Islamists.

Nice to see everyone getting along so well these days.

Anyway I hope that during a break in the denunciations of Zionist imperialism, some folks from the antiwar Left will have a chance to ask their comrades from the DFLP if they are sorry about massacring those kids back in 1974."..

One of the amusing things about the left is the names its various members choose to call the various different groups and strands within, as it continues, endlessly, its internecine and hyperbolical warfare.

We have a fair range here; "loon" left, "insane" left etc. This is, of course, completely and predictably juvenile. Reading and analysing the Klein piece in question as Cooper (rather fruitlessly) advises his readers to do, there is no evidence to suggest that Klein is a loon or insane, even if one disagrees with her views.

But if people want to debate in crude television style soundbites and ridiculous stereotypes and categoraisations, on blogs, then so be it.

But it certainly does not constitute a rational debate about the issues, but rather simply perpetuates the usual sectarian and partisan garbage, hyperbole and mudslinging.

oops - I said the Palestinian murder of schoolchildren happened in 1971. The Ma'alot massacre was in 1974.

Benjamin,

I agree. Catsy's protests notwithstanding, Ms. Klein doesn't strike me as that much of a "Loon" at all; and now I understand why her article is in the Nation.

For that matter, most of the Leftist street would probably agree with Klein that Al-Sadr is being unfairly victimized; all he really wants is democracy and that his cemeteries be respected. Is that too much to ask for?

Now, if there's a Leftist who disagrees with that simple proposition (that Sadr is the good guy here), I'm willing to bet they are in the minority. And that's Hitchen's entire point isn't it? That just as the Left is siding with Al-Sadr, the Iraqi people are turning against him. The Left has been outflanked again.

No, Klein isn't a "Loon"; far from it; she's fairly typical. And Catsy should read her column before denouncing her as such.

Labels! Get your labels here! Can't prejudge half the country without a label! Get your Labels Here!

Hot Labels, we got Right Wing Nutjobs and Liberal Commie Bastards 2 for a dollar. Get your Labels here. It's better to label everyone than use your brain!!!

Get your Labels, Hot Labels Commin' Through!

If it weren't so pathetic, it'd be funny... oh wait, is IS funny. Hahahahaha

Tosk

On the other hand, if Leftist Loons (such as Klein) can make a living writing for your respected newspapers of the Left, then I insist there is something happenning. That's all I have to say.

When Ann Coulter is no longer making a living off her screeds, then we can talk about Naomi Klein writing one-off editorials.

When Rush Limbaugh's decades-long career peddling demonstrable falsehoods through radio and print comes to an end, then I'll concede you have a point.

Until then, though, these and other examples of right-wing hate-peddlers making a good living while remaining widely respected by the right don't exactly support your argument.

I could very easily use Coulter to smear the entire right. She and HA certainly sound like they occupy similar rhetorical ground. But that would be dishonest: most Republicans I know think Coulter's a loon. That might be anecdotal, but I'm perfectly willing to give the right the benefit of the doubt on this one.

It's a lot easier and more fun to find another example of far-left idiocy to bash than to face how shitty things really are in Iraq right now, or to argue with likes of George Will and Fareed Zakaria and other non-leftists who are skeptical about the prognosis for liberal nation building in places like Najaf. Or to think about the horrifically ironic and absurd possibility that the reason we can't find WMD materials in Iraq is that they were looted in the aftermath of Saadam's overthrow. Or to think about how utterly indifferent our allies (including the UK) are to Iranian nuke-building efforts.

That said, Ms. Klein deserves to be called to task for suggesting that the views of the Mahdi army are shared by the Iraqi majority.

Now, let's get back to facing reality:

Read the CSIS report on Iraqi reconstruction progress http://www.csis.org/isp/pcr/0409_progressperil.pdf

Or yesterday's NYTimes lead story, "U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08policy.html

Or today's Washington Post story "U.S. Troops' Death Rate Rising in Iraq" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6756-2004Sep8.html

I'm with Catsy here. I spend a lot of time on people like Naomi Klein, but there's no way she represents liberals.

I have also spent time criticizing liberals who won't take on their collegues when necessary. But you'll notice that all four writers mentioned and quoted in my post above (Hitchens, Klein, Cooper, and Ireland) were or are affiliated with The Nation at the columnist and editorial level. Only one of them thinks it's a good idea to bring Najaf to New York, and the other three hammered her for it.

Now Markus, haven't you learned that the entire MSM has a left-wing bias. Can you really trust the CSIS? I'm sure they aren't being truthful. The NYT misquoted, what was actually said was "U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Reigons of Iraq." See that period?! Tehy didn't include it, it changes the entire meaning of the statement. And the Washington Post? Ha! The Washington Post prints more lies than The National Enquirer. The US Troops death rates aren't rising! We lose 1000 people a year to accidents, whats another 1000 lives? Be serious, we can't win a war without some dead people. Might as well have 1000 as 20, in the grand scheme of things it's not bad.

YAY, my first Conservative post... How'd I do? I tried to follow the formula.

Markus,

I take your point, but I never did expect George Will to hitch his wagon to liberal nation-building. The fact that he's a non-leftist skeptic doesn't earn him any points with me. Democracy-building in Iraq is not a conservative project, as you do seem to understand.

>>>"When Ann Coulter is no longer making a living off her screeds, then we can talk about Naomi Klein writing one-off editorials."

Catsy,

by the way, Coulter and Limbaugh aren't considered "Loons", except by Libs/Leftists. I rather like them both myself. And I don't know any conservative who's dissavowed them, so if you want to smear the Right by them then go right ahead. And we'll argue with you on the merits, instead of hiding behind the "Loon" defense. I'd like to see you do that--stick up for poor Ms. Klein.

Catsy's protests notwithstanding, Ms. Klein doesn't strike me as that much of a "Loon" at all; and now I understand why her article is in the Nation.

You might want to peruse her archives on The Guardian. She consistently makes a lot of points about Bush's bungling of Iraq, but wraps them all in a breathless, barely-concealed aura of worship towards Iraqi insurgents. Personally, I have a fair amount of sympathy for the Iraqis who've had family and friends killed as collateral damage, but don't attack civilians and believe in good faith that they are resisting a foreign occupation. I don't like that they're attacking our troops, but I understand /why/ they are and would probably do the same thing if it were /my/ country and /my/ family.

But Klein seems incapable of believing that there actually are terrorists and foreign militants in Iraq, or that some of the Iraqis in the insurgency just want an excuse to shoot Americans or blow shit up. She's pretty squarely in the blame-America-first camp.

Now, if there's a Leftist who disagrees with that simple proposition (that Sadr is the good guy here), I'm willing to bet they are in the minority.

I certainly hope not, because I think Sadr's an opportunistic thug. We certainly exacerbated the situation with our ham-fisted approach to him, and then with our conflicting orders and lack of will to finish the job, but don't make the mistake of thinking that just because Sadr has coopted populist rhetoric that he and his militia are much more than thugs taking advantage of our incompetence.

And Catsy should read her column before denouncing her as such.

I did and I have been reading her for quite some time in the Guardian. I stand by my opinion.

Catsy,

I retract my last post in light of your last post.

by the way, Coulter and Limbaugh aren't considered "Loons", except by Libs/Leftists. I rather like them both myself.

Then I don't see that we have anything to discuss. I'm not going to convince you that Coulter makes her living off demonstrable lies and advocacy of violence towards and silencing of those she dislikes, and you're not going to convince me that her body of work doesn't speak for itself.

David: by the way, Coulter and Limbaugh aren't considered "Loons", except by Libs/Leftists. I rather like them both myself.

Ah, David. What would we do without you?

I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a loon, but I do think he's a jerk and a hack. Ann Coulter is a loon. She's a cheerleader for Joseph McCarthy, for God's sake. Most conservatives I know think she's a loon. National Review fired her.

>>>"Most conservatives I know think she's a loon. National Review fired her."

Michael,

she's certainly a bomb thrower, but she's more right that wrong (and so was McCarthy by the way, which is Coulter's point).

more right THAN wrong.

David -- McCarthy's main point was that the State Department and the U.S. Army were crawling with Communists. As he was never able to produce any evidence to back up these charges, he was more WRONG than RIGHT.

David

The problem with your analysis, though, is that Klein did not claim that Sadr was the "good" guy, and she correctly points out that Sadr was/is calling for elections. She notes too that Sadr will want to implement a Iranian style theocracy.

All that may have been clumsily put, but those interested in a rather more objective analysis of her piece will note that this is a reference to the dilema that faces the Americans; to allow a real democracy in Iraq may result in a pro-Iranian Islamic govt, a govt that will be against US govt interests.

>>>"McCarthy's main point was that the State Department and the U.S. Army were crawling with Communists. As he was never able to produce any evidence to back up these charges, he was more WRONG than RIGHT."

Markus,

the Left has been on cruise control for a good 35 years now. Your info is woefully outdated. Irrefutable evidence exists that McCarthy was correct that there were many Soviet spies in American government. And you certainly can't dismiss this as no big deal under that eternal principle "no harm, no foul," because there was harm. The Rosenbergs alone spied on their own country and turned over atomic secrets to a grisly totalitarian regime that would threaten American citizens with annihilation for the next 50 years. Yet many liberals defended them to the end.

Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.

Do a google on the Verona files and check it out for yourself.

David -- what "the Left" allegedly thought/thinks about the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss was/is irrelevant to my point, which is that McCarthy and Roy Cohn were unable to back up their sensational allegations (none of which concerned Hiss or the Rosenbergs).

Markus,

it may be irrelevant to your point, but not to mine--that Coulter is more right than wrong (and so was McCarthy).

David -- I have no problem with Ann Coulter. But as someone arguing for the most part on the opposite end of the political spectrum from her, I'd point out that she doesn't concern me or scare me. Unlike other conservative commentators, such as George Will or Charles Krauthammer, she is effective only at preaching to the converted, not at persuading the undecided or substantively undermining the arguments of the liberal opposition. I strongly doubt that she ever convinces anybody who does not already agree with her down the line.

Benjamin,

Before being too quick to jump to Klein's defense, you may want to stop and take notice that she is being hammered by her colleagues at the magazine, including one of her editors. You act as though she's being ganged up on by a bunch of right-wingers, when in fact she is being ganged up on by everybody except you.

>>>"Maybe not, but Sean Hannity trots [Falwell] out once in a while."

Michael,

ok I'm done thinking about it.

Yes it's true that Hannity trots Falwell out from time to time, but he also trots out Nader from time to time, and people from any political stripe from time to time.

Falwell could NEVER make a living commentating for Fox. Yet Naomi Klein DOES just that for the Nation. If she can do that, then the folks at the Nation (and its readers) can't also dissavow her as a "Loon."

There is no comparison between Falwell/Fox and Klein/The Nation.

You can't have it both ways.

I pointed this out on Cooper's blog, because for Klein to show any amount of sympathy for Sadr and his movement is considerably worse than even what either he or Hitchens are suggesting. It's not just that Sadr is an Khoemeni-style theocrat; his officers actively preach the kind of anti-semitic conspiracy theories that are part and parcel of the ongoing kristalnacht against Jews and suspected Jews throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. (And I wouldn't be surprised if similar words came from Sadr's own mouth.) From the May 17th New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact

"One of Moqtada’s aides, Hazem al-Araji, delivered the sermon... He is a thirty-five-year-old sayyid with a salt-and-pepper beard who spent two years in exile in Vancouver before the war. Later, in a conversation at his office, he proved to be a smooth, smiling politician who Googles himself several times a day to keep up with his press, and who made a theocratic Islamic state sound not very different from a parliamentary democracy. But, in front of the crowd of worshippers outside the shrine, Araji let loose an incendiary and conspiracy-laced analysis of the violence in Iraq. The attacks came from four sources, he declared, none of them Iraqi or Muslim: it was the Jews, the Americans, the British, and the Wahhabi. The Jews—who had been warned to stay away from the World Trade Center on September 11th, so that not one Jew died—“want Iraqis to die.”

David,

Okay, fair enough points re: Klein and Falwell, The Nation and Fox.

Keep in mind, though, that Klein's colleagues are willing to argue with her in public. Sean Hannity does not argue with Falwell or Robertson. He coos at them. At least he has when I've seen and heard it.

I'm not saying the left doesn't have problems with its loons. I, of all people, could not make that argument. I'm only saying that the left isn't the only side with this problem.

(I don't think "the left" is even a "side" any more anyway. It is way too fractured. Noami Klein is clearly not on the same side as Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens.)

>>>"Keep in mind, though, that Klein's colleagues are willing to argue with her in public."

Michael,

I am encouraged by that. But keep in mind that the National Review didn't have a conversation with Coulter; they simply fired her, as you stated. And Not because of her ideology by the way, but because her bomb throwing was out of control. She made some comment about parking lots if I recall correctly. It offended some Arabs.

So when will the Nation (and they speak for the Left) begin to fire it's own bombthrowers? What is too Left for the Left? Calling Al-Sadr a good guy when our GIs are dying in Najaf isn't offensive? When will offended AMERICANS mean something to the Left?

Never

"Before being too quick to jump to Klein's defense, you may want to stop and take notice that she is being hammered by her colleagues at the magazine, including one of her editors. You act as though she's being ganged up on by a bunch of right-wingers, when in fact she is being ganged up on by everybody except you.

Unlike you, Michael, I am not bothered about who, or how many, "hammer" Klein (to use your rather hyperbolical phrase.)

I am much more interested in analysing the piece in question, that Klein wrote. Which is kinda boring, I know, but somewhat more relevant.

You fail to do that, so does Hitchens, but to give Cooper some credit, he does so, quoting Klein, and also encourafing others to read the whole text.

I have read the whole text and I can see little evidence to support the silly categorisations and stereotypes spewed about Klein in this thread. I can see no evidence that Klein actually personally "supports" Sadr or Islamism, nor that she saying he is the "good guy" in this.

Her piece is an analysis of the situation in Iraq. Agree, or disagree, fine. But the hyperbolical pronouncements about her here is partisan/sectarian nonsense, and there is no utility in it whatsoever.

If Americans are OFFENDED by Klein, then it is the offended Americans who need help, not Klein.

A person, so filled with their own opinion, that another opinion is offensive to them, is a very ill person indeed.

I may not agree with many posters here... but I have yet to be offended by them.

Ratatosk,

I don't disagree. I'm personally all in favor of the Left outing itself. I'm all for it. But as soon as the Right does the same thing, they're "Loons" and they get fired.

I think Ratatosk makes a very good point.

Benjamin, I may have "failed" to challenge Klein line by line, but I pointed you to someone who did. This is a daily blog. I don't have the time to write an entire fully-formed essay every single day. So I often point you to others who did write a fully formed piece. Deal with it or write your own complete daily essay in between your other jobs.

"A person, so filled with their own opinion, that another opinion is offensive to them, is a very ill person indeed."

I think "Bush=Hitler" is offensive to the six million Jews who died during WWII.

I think "Blood for Oil" is offensive to the one-hundred and thirty thousand troops working to establish a civil government in Iraq.

I think anyone equivocating on Belsan atrocities is offensive.
In fact I think big political bloggers who completely ignored Beslan are offensive (e.g. Josh Marshall and Atrios).

I think the entire Democratic Underground site is offensive.

Call me terminally ill.

If Americans are OFFENDED by Klein, then it is the offended Americans who need help, not Klein. A person, so filled with their own opinion, that another opinion is offensive to them, is a very ill person indeed.

Please. I used to know a guy who was of the opinion that all homosexuals should be rounded up and shot. I found his opinion offensive. Still do. Which of us was "a very ill person indeed?"

I find Klein's opinions somewhat less offensive than that of my former co-worker, but only just barely. Klein's article is breath-takingly stupid and destructive to the Left, as Marc Cooper went to great pains to point out (so I won't bother repeating him).

It's a perfect example of the way the elements of the Left are capable of letting themselves slide slowly into an alliance with fascism as described by Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism.

It's a perfect example of the way the elements of the Left are capable of letting themselves slide slowly into an alliance with fascism as described by Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism.

More rhetoric. Of course, when you actually read the article, there is no evidence to support your assertion that Klein is trying to form an alliance with fascism at all.

It's interesting watching these type of threads take shape. Its kind of like a form of Chinese whispers. An article by a hate figure is posted - say, take the Klein one, and by a gradual process of exaggeration and distortion, one gets to labelling the author as a "loon", "insame" or as a supporter of Islamism or fascism. Of course, there is little or no reference to the original article.

Then, just as an exercise, I usually look back at the "offending" article, and it turns out to be all rather prosaic and mild.

It's the same routine, Right or Left.

Browning: It's a perfect example of the way the elements of the Left are capable of letting themselves slide slowly into an alliance with fascism as described by Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism.

That is exactly right. Benjamin says this is "rhetoric," but he has not read that book. I have.

No doubt Benjamin will have a hard time believing the author of that book is a Bush-hating leftist, even though it's true.

Michael

I know about Berman. But its always easy to view a book as some sort of Bible, and then try to fit everything in around it. Look, if you think Naomi Klein is some sort of fascist supporting Islamist, then so be it. If you think that she wants to build alliances with them, or even drifting to that position, so be it. But there is no evidence to support these assertions. I am waiting for someone to post some evidence, but none is forthcoming.

Benjamin,

her column is your evidence.

David

That is not evidence at all.

Benjamin,

Bullshit.

You want to talk "rhetoric?' How about saying that to take offense at someone's opinion is a sign of mental illness. (I know you didn't do that, but you apparently thought that it was "a very good point.")

No, Klein does not explicitly and expressly endorse Al Sadr in her article. She knows better than to do that. But she has obviously worked her way around into an undeniable sympathy for al Sadr and his "army," a natural compliment to her contempt for the American forces there.

According to her: who are the Americans? They are blithely ignorant braggarts, killing children and desecrating religious symbols, and they "stomp through the Valley of Peace cemetery, their boots slipping into graves as they use tombstones for cover." (Purple prose much?)

But who are the "insurgents?' Why, they are merely "Iraqi citizens" whose "opposition to the occupation represents the overwhelmingly mainstream sentiment in Iraq." They "made their demands for elections and an end to occupation through sermons, peaceful protests and newspaper articles,' until apparently they had no choice but to launch their righteous "uprising" in pursuit of . . . . (ahem) okay, maybe an Iranian-style theocracy ultimately, but . . . "for now" only the noble goals of "direct elections and an end to foreign occupation."

(Never mind, the murders they commit, the other Iraqi citizens whom the terrorize. Never mind the children they use as human shields, and the sacred shrines they desecrate by using them as headquarters for their war. And let's please just deny that they are in any way connected to Baathists nostalgic for the privilege they enjoyed under Saddam's regime, or to the Iranian religious dictators. And let's ignore altogether that they are, by far, the largest impediment to the end of occupation and the start of democracy, and that the majority of Iraqis know this, and can't stand them because of it.)

Klein goes out of her way to present the Americans in the worst possible light, and the "Mahdi Army" in the best. In doing so, she is writing propaganda for reactionary religious fanatics. And in doing that, she reveals herself as a sympathizer for them, though she knows better than to say it out loud in so many words, or perhaps even to admit it to herself. It's a subtle shift.

To quote Berman, speaking of Vichy era French Socialists, "They had begun as defenders of liberal values and human rights, and they had evolved into defenders of bigotry, tyranny, superstition, and mass murder." You don't have to treat Berman's book a Bible (and I don't) to recognize that Klein's rhetoric is a step on a similar path.

Only one of them thinks it's a good idea to bring Najaf to New York,

What do you suppose she meant by that?

Browning

All very emotive stuff. There is no evidence, of course, simply your completely biased interpretation of her article, anxious as you are to fit Klein into Berman's template.

There is polling data to suggest that BOTH Sistani and Sadr have popular support, and Klein hints at the dilema faced by the Americans because of this.

As for atrocities, and killing of innocent civilians, this happens all the time in Iraq. The fact that partisans want to play up the involvement of one particular group over another (in this case you stress the Madr army's involvement) is simply another reality of war.

Klein says this:

Before Sadr's supporters began their uprising, they made their demands for elections and an end to occupation through sermons, peaceful protests and newspaper articles. US forces responded by shutting down their newspapers, firing on their demonstrations and bombing their neighborhoods.

You posit no evidence to say this is factually incorrect. Could it be (perish the thought) that Sadr's rise (which was not inevitable) was a result of the Americans and the interim govt's stupid mishandling of the situation? Sadr was not a significant figure before.

Additionally, it would bew great, would it not, if both sides of the debate would stress the loss of all innocent life, but I have yet to see a pro-war blog (even a liberal one) mention the death of Iraqi civilians to any degree (except whemn its done by an official enemy.) That is simply blatant hypocrisy, and that's why I must take your emotional moralising with a rather large pinch of salt.

Benjamin,

Sorry, Have to call bullshit again.

I derived most of the emotive stuff from, Klein, and quoted it rather extensively for a comment posting. You remember, all the stomping? The swooping? The blithe traipsing? Remember all the peaceful prayers and newspapers, and the overwhelming mainstream support? Emotive stuff, all of it.

Okay, maybe I got a little emotive too, about, say, the use of children as human shields. I'll give you that one. I think it has something to do with being a warm-blooded human being.

But, for you, well, that just 'happens all the time in Iraq", and is "a reality of war." This steely, stoic rhetoric in the same breath that you say that "it would be great, would it not" if we "stressed the loss of all innocent life." Which is just another way of drawing moral equivalency between accidental civilian casualties and deliberate use of human shields, not to mention murder. So as long as we both are moralizing, would you mind passing me the salt when you're done?

The piece is clearly a defense of al Sadr, particularly as evidenced in the passage, you quote yourself in full, and then challenge me to refute. Jeezus.

You ask me to post evidence that Klein's defense of al Sadr is factually incorrect. I don't even need to to make my point. I need only point out that it is a highly selective depiction of events. She's deliberately left out all the bad stuff. She's shilling for his side. It's like what a lawyer does when she selects evidence for a case.

So let me put the burden of proof on you. Why don't you show me where Klein demonstrates any lack of sympathy for al Sadr and his army. See if you can find one without the Left's new favorite conjunction.

Yes, but . . . Yes, but . . . Yes, but . . .

>>>"Yes, but . . . Yes, but . . . Yes, but . . ."

The terror-loving Left.

Browning

My point is that the killing of civilians happens all the time in Iraq. But you only mention a tiny fraction of them - the ones killed by the official enemy. Until the pro-war left stops leaving thousands invisible in a discussion of the deaths in Iraq, then a broad based discussion is impossible.

Times of war are great for the simple minded, a real gift for them. As well as for hypocritical liberal moralists, who bang the drum of war from thousands of miles away.

We will see where this war gets us.

David

My grounds for being against the Iraq war are many, most of which you would not understand. But four you might. Firstly, although Saddam is not in power, I don't believe much else positive will be achieved by the escapade. Two, it will do nothing to aid the War on Terror, only make it worse, if anything. Three, the neo-con pipe dreams are fantasies at best, and will only make matters worse. Four, its massively expensive.

Benjamin,

I appreciate the four you listed. If the Left's opposition were based in those four, I wouldn't call you terror lovers. I share at least one or two of those concerns.

But it's for the reasons you left unstated that I consider the Left to be terror lovers.

How's this for what you left unsaid; America is the greatest source of evil on the planet, and it must be defeated for peace to finally reign in the world. Or how about this one; the American Empire must fall in order to return to our "Republic". Sound familiar?

My dear Benjamin, I'm familiar with the Left's rationale. I've heard all the permutations.

And my conclusion is that the difference between the Left's hatred of "Bush" (with all your "unfathomable" motives), and actual terrorists is that the Left merely lacks the courage of their convictions. You're ticking time bombs.

I regret that you'll take this personally and feel the need to lash out at me. Truly I do. Because nothing I've said was intended to insult you. I am merely stating the facts as I see them. And even if you believe me to be wrong (and let's pretend I am wrong for argument's sake), you have to ask yourself why so many people see the Left as I do.

Times of war are great for the simple minded. . . . My grounds for being against the Iraq war are many, most of which you would not understand.

Well, we've changed subjects now, haven't we? I'm in no mood to dispute your intellectual and/or moral superiority. That would just be hopeless and tiresome.

I am beginning to see that when you talk about Hitchens' "self-preening English supercilliousness," you know of which you speak.

I will also concede that I put the deliberate slaughter of civilians, assassinations of political rivals, and the use of human shields in a different category from accidental civilian casualties by a military that has gone to great lengths to avoid them. It's one of my moral short-comings, a by-product of my dim-wiited American inability to grasp the concepts of moral relativism and embrace them.

Hamas: Israeli leftists encouraged terrorism

"The Israeli left-wing and your 'peace-camp' are what ultimately encouraged us to continue to carry out suicide bombings. We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissension within Israeli society, and the left wing encouraged us in that regard," said an imprisoned Hamas terrorist in one of many interviews for a new book, "The Seventh War" by Israeli journalists Avi Yissocharov and Amos Harel.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40383

Browning

Yeah okay, it was not a good line ("most of which you would not understand".) I must withdraw that remark.

David

Fair enough, if that's your view of the Left so be it. I am not here to discuss the Left. I would be careful about making too many generalisations though.

Personally, I am pretty careful with the "America is evil line", because the problems stem from the behaviour of elites. So simply saying "America" can give the wrong impression. One needs to be rather more specific.

The US govt is following international (and national) policies that favour the US elites, who control the political system, and is acting in the self interest of those elites. Now, some may see positive results coming from those policies, but I would posit that the bad outweighs the good.

I think there is a certain amount of delusion and wishful thinking amongst the pro-war, pro-Bush liberals concerning the realities of the policies currently being followed.

I think the passage of time will highlight the folly of these policies.

Thanks.

Browning

Regarding Hitchens what I was trying to get at is this:

Hitchens is a good writer, very good with words, clever, entertaining and technically impressive. I can respect him for that, and for some of his work. But all that does not necessarily make him right here. He can be wrong in an entertaining way, and be wrong whilst impressing us with his command of the English language.

david -- I put as much stock in the authenticity of that worldnet article you cited as I put in Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It also makes no sense. If Hamas wanted to create disension in Israeli society, offering to make peace would be the way to do it, NOT embarking on suicide bombings, which would naturally unite a society. Just another excuse to bash the Israeli Left, which despite "being destroyed" by the Intifada has still put forward the ONLY credible solution to the problem of too many hostile Arabs west of the Jordan -- a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. The ONLY alternatives to this is transfer or an apartheid-like state. Every responsible person recognizes this, which is why even Ariel Sharon has come out in favor of a Palestinian state.

>>>"If Hamas wanted to create disension in Israeli society, offering to make peace would be the way to do it, NOT embarking on suicide bombings, which would naturally unite a society."

Markus,

well it hasn't united us here in the U.S. has it? Look to our own "peace" movement here in the U.S. everytime there's a kidnapping in Iraq to see what Hamas has been trying to accomplish in Israel. The Israelis of course know their enemy far better than we do. They're not the complete suckers we are.

Why should you believe that article; it's too painful for you to accept. And say what you like about Worldnet, they don't fabricate stuff like CBS does.

A palestinian state isn't terribly controversial, by the way, even with hawkish Israelis. The rub has been doing it within the framework of an agreement, something the palestinians have made next to impossible.

Simply cut and run you say? Like in Lebanon? That's the palestinian goal, and the peace camp's. The Israelis would be fools to do it. But don't forget Markus, Hamas doesn't want a "palestinian state"; they want One Palestine; just as you probably do.

Have you ever asked yourself why Lefties and terrorists are practically on the same page, see eye to eye on just about all their positions? It should give you pause for thought.